Moral Relativism

[jonfawkes]

You have taken the Fundamentalist’s interpretation of Ephesians, jon. Not the Catholic one.

No Scripture verse professes that men are superior to women. Nuh-uh. No way. Not a chance.

I’m just reading the text, not taking any particular dogmatic view of it. What’s the nuanced reading. It does seems straightforward though. Like the SAT comparisons you are fond of.

man is to woman as Christ is to Church.

 

[ddarko]

Wait, isn’t this a thread about whether morality exists “objectively” outside human discourse? Just show me that it does, and I will concede your point.

Honestly, this all comes down to faith in a truth beyond. And that you can never prove. One just believes, or not.

Oh, and I did not commit a logical fallacy by stating that you must demonstrate the truth of your premises and/or assumptions.

You are not making any sense.

You believe

1. Other minds exists
2. Mathematical truths
3. Empricial method etc

WITHOUT evidence or demonstration. Or are you continuously in doubt? I don’t know about you but if I met someone who continuously questioned whether I was a figment of his imagination, I will try to get him help from a mental institute. But obviously there is no evidence.

Similarly, with morality, it is from human experience. An objective morality is almost a logical necessity for our experience just as it is essential that people we meet are real.

You seem to deny that you are not asking for empirical evidence but you implicitly ask for it by saying you must “demonstrate” the truth of it.

Oh and also Mr. Larking, if you doubt that human experiences indicate that morality is subjective, ask your self, if someone rapes a 4 year old child and beats her to death, is that just subjectively problematic for you? Or do you think it is objectively wrong?

If you think that “in current society we should not do such a thing because it is unacceptable”, then you still saying that there is a moral rule that says “we should not do what is socially unacceptable”.

So Mr. Larking, is it ok to rape a 4 year old and beat her to death as long as the person believes its ok?

God Bless

 

[larkin31]

You are not making any sense.

You believe

1. Other minds exists
2. Mathematical truths
3. Empricial method etc

WITHOUT evidence or demonstration. Or are you continuously in doubt? I don’t know about you but if I met someone who continuously questioned whether I was a figment of his imagination, I will try to get him help from a mental institute. But obviously there is no evidence.

Similarly, with morality, it is from human experience. An objective morality is almost a logical necessity for our experience just as it is essential that people we meet are real.

Objective morality is “almost” a lot of things. That it is “almost” a logical necessity for you to be moral means nothing in terms of whether it is ACTUALLY objective or not.

You seem to deny that you are not asking for empirical evidence but you implicitly ask for it by saying you must “demonstrate” the truth of it.

You can use any form of persuasive evidence that you want. But in order to prove the objective reality of something, you had better provide objectively real evidence (this is logical, after all).

Oh and also Mr. Larking, if you doubt that human experiences indicate that morality is subjective, ask your self, if someone rapes a 4 year old child and beats her to death, is that just subjectively problematic for you? Or do you think it is objectively wrong?

Who is “Mr. Larking”[sic]. Your scenario is very very wrong.

If you think that “in current society we should not do such a thing because it is unacceptable”, then you still saying that there is a moral rule that says “we should not do what is socially unacceptable”.

You don’t seem to understand, and I am tiring of explaining. I OF COURSE believe in moral rules. I enforce them daily in my household and in my job teaching children. I am one of the primary disciplinarians at my school (I serve on the disciplinary committee). That I adhere to rules is in no way relevant to whether the rules exist somewhere beyond the realm of human discourse.

So Mr. Larking, is it ok to rape a 4 year old and beat her to death as long as the person believes its ok?

Mr. Who? What trouble are you having reading and transcribing my name? It is Larkin31.

 

[PRmerger]

No you are trying to control thought. I don’t think it’s possible.

I agree. It is impossible.

But you can’t deny that some thoughts are WRONG.

I can stop an action that I think harms another, but not thought. You feel the need to control in order to feel moral yourself. Your morality is based on controlling others, rather than yourself.

Why should you stop an action that harms another? Isn’t that imposing your view on someone’ else’s? What if that’s the path this person has chosen to take?

It is my opinion that these things are wrong, I can say why I think they are wrong, but I can’t say that they are absolutely, universally, wrong.

Right. You can’t. Thus, in your world you can’t stop a racist. You can’t stop a homophobe. You can’t stop a neo-nazi.

I don’t see the preservation of a “race” as a desired thing for society that I live in as whole. Some do, and racism stems partially from that.

Racism is a judgment on your part. In your paradigm, you cannot judge someone as being racist. You can only say, “I see you like vanilla. I like chocolate.”

 

[PRmerger]

So I can’t say that it’s an absolute evil. Racism made the Messiah possible. I just don’t think it’s applicable in the time or society that I live in. It’s still conditional to the time and society that I live in.

This, jon, is beyond contemptuous. I will not dialogue with someone who professes that “racism made the Messiah possible.”

And it’s especially egregious that this person proclaims to be a Catholic.

 

[ddarko]

Objective morality is “almost” a lot of things. That it is “almost” a logical necessity for you to be moral means nothing in terms of whether it is ACTUALLY objective or not.

You can use any form of persuasive evidence that you want. But in order to prove the objective reality of something, you had better provide objectively real evidence (this is logical, after all).

This is why I said initially that you were not logically sound. Now you tell me that this is your argument against Objective morality. Make up your mind.

Here is my question to you, do you believe other minds exists? Do yo REALLY believe that they exist? Well the problem is that it CANNOT be demonstrated logically. It is from human experience. It is a metaphysical truth.

SO, in the same way, I am telling you that the objective morals are from human experience. We know objective morals exists from HUMAN EXPERIENCE. Therefore, they are just as REAL as me believing that YOU ARE NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION.

Who is “Mr. Larking”[sic]. Your scenario is very very wrong.

You don’t seem to understand, and I am tiring of explaining. I OF COURSE believe in moral rules. I enforce them daily in my household and in my job teaching children. I am one of the primary disciplinarians at my school (I serve on the disciplinary committee). That I adhere to rules is in no way relevant to whether the rules exist somewhere beyond the realm of human discourse.

Well I don’t know what to say. Just don’t mislead those kids.

Morality must be a truth. It can’t just be a truth of human discourse. Do you teach them in school that Scientific axioms and Mathematical truths are just in the realm of human discourse and doesn’t exist outside of it?

Or even better, do you teach them that your little idea that “morality is only present in the realm of human discourse” is a statement that transcends the realm of human discourse?

Just out of curiosity, which school is this?

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

I agree. It is impossible.

But you can’t deny that some thoughts are WRONG.

Why should you stop an action that harms another? Isn’t that imposing your view on someone’ else’s? What if that’s the path this person has chosen to take?

Right. You can’t. Thus, in your world you can’t stop a racist. You can’t stop a homophobe. You can’t stop a neo-nazi.



Racism is a judgment on your part. In your paradigm, you cannot judge someone as being racist. You can only say, “I see you like vanilla. I like chocolate.”

From my perspective,yes things can be wrong. It doesn’t make it an absolute “wrong”.

No I’m stopping another from harming on another. They are still free to thing as they wish. I’m not imposing my views at all. Actions have consequences. Every society has social norms that they must adhere to. If they step outside that i.e “physically harming” in this case there are consequences in this society. They’re still free to think as they wish. They are society’s rules, not an absolute morality.

Yes, I am free to judge, it is my paradigm. I can say what is with in it or outside it. Again doesn’t make it absolute.

 

[jonfawkes]

This, jon, is beyond contemptuous. I will not dialogue with someone who professes that “racism made the Messiah possible.”

And it’s especially egregious that this person proclaims to be a Catholic.

Without the preservation of the Jewish people there can be no messiah. Jesus is a messiah through prophecy and fulfillment of the Jewish covenant. The Jewish people had to be preserved in order that it could be fulfilled.

Racism is placing one race over another - Not a difficult concept. I find racism abhorrent in today’s society but it seemed to have served a purpose at one time. Ergo not absolute.

 

[ddarko]

No I’m stopping another from harming on another. They are still free to thing as they wish. I’m not imposing my views at all. Actions have consequences. Every society has social norms that they must adhere to. If they step outside that i.e “physically harming” in this case there are consequences in this society. They’re still free to think as they wish. They are society’s rules, not an absolute morality.

Why do you stop someone from harming another physically or mentally?

Also, the question here is that if something is just a “social norm”, then why should I adhere to it? Why should anyone adhere to it? If there is no objective morality, then social norms should not exist in the first place. They are just lies. We are free to break them.

Do you think such a world is possible in your human experience?

The point of objective morality is that to say it does not exist is contrary to human experience. As I was explaining to Larking above, objective morality is as real as anything else I believe from human experience.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

Also, the question here is that if something is just a “social norm”, then why should I adhere to it? Why should anyone adhere to it? If there is no objective morality, then social norms should not exist in the first place. They are just lies. We are free to break them.

'zactly.

It reminds me of times when I’m playing a game with my 7yr old daughter in which she makes all the rules. She’ll tell me, “You can’t walk on the carpet 'cause it’s hot lava”.

Ok. I comply.

Then she starts walking on the carpet and she says, “Well, it’s not hot lava now 'cause I need to get something from over there.”

Okey dokey. She makes up the rules. She’s not bound by them. She can change them ad lib.

It makes no sense to me why someone would want to advocate a world which follows the above paradigm for morality.

(This is the same response I’ve given to you in another thread, ddarko, in which we were in dialogue. I am simply re-posting for the new readers of this thread. )

 

[jonfawkes]

Why do you stop someone from harming another physically or mentally?

Also, the question here is that if something is just a “social norm”, then why should I adhere to it? Why should anyone adhere to it? If there is no objective morality, then social norms should not exist in the first place. They are just lies. We are free to break them.

Do you think such a world is possible in your human experience?

The point of objective morality is that to say it does not exist is contrary to human experience. As I was explaining to Larking above, objective morality is as real as anything else I believe from human experience.

God Bless

You adhere to them for two reasons, you either believe they are beneficial to society and there so, by extension, to yourself or out of fear of reprisal. If you chose to step outside societal boundaries there will be repercussions. It may be jail or it may be the changing of the society e.x. the civil rights movement.

I think it’s not only possible but is the world that we live in.

 

[ddarko]

You adhere to them for two reasons, you either believe they are beneficial to society and there so, by extension, to yourself or out of fear of reprisal. If you chose to step outside societal boundaries there will be repercussions. It may be jail or it may be the changing of the society e.x. the civil rights movement.

I think it’s not only possible but is the world that we live in.

I don’t think you understand.

If objective morality does not exist, there is no basic premise to start off with. For an example, you mention punishment for going against social norms, BUT my point is that it is illogical to give punishment. Why punish?

In other words, unless you assume a certain thing as objective (it could be that ‘going against society is immoral’), then you cannot perform any action. So what I am saying is that even implicitly, you are assuming something objective.

Btw, you must also know that moral relativism is self-refuting in practice. So no, our current ethics and laws are not built on the premise of moral relativism. If it was, then it would be like a world that didn’t believe in principle of contradiction or other minds exists.

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

I don’t think you understand.

If objective morality does not exist, there is no basic premise to start off with. For an example, you mention punishment for going against social norms, BUT my point is that it is illogical to give punishment. Why punish?

In other words, unless you assume a certain thing as objective (it could be that ‘going against society is immoral’), then you cannot perform any action. So what I am saying is that even implicitly, you are assuming something objective.

Btw, you must also know that moral relativism is self-refuting in practice. So no, our current ethics and laws are not built on the premise of moral relativism. If it was, then it would be like a world that didn’t believe in principle of contradiction or other minds exists.

God Bless

I think it’s in flux, it changes to serve society. It is “set” as long as it serves the society to be “set”. It’s “true” for that time and for that society. Doesn’t make it absolute.

 

[ddarko]

I think it’s in flux, it changes to serve society. It is “set” as long as it serves the society to be “set”. It’s “true” for that time and for that society. Doesn’t make it absolute.

So here is my question to you.

Do you believe that I am a figment of your imagination? How do you know that I am real?

Or take other mathematical truths like the principle of contradiction (the idea that two contradictory things cannot both be true). Do you live as if that is false?

My argument is just as you believe them without any evidence, you have to believe in objective morality.

Also, your idea that it changes from time to time is still incorrect. You are still holding one thing objectively.

“That in any given society at any given time, whatever it deems as against its social norm deserves punishment”. Is that not true? So you still have at least one objective moral.

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

So here is my question to you.

Do you believe that I am a figment of your imagination? How do you know that I am real?

Or take other mathematical truths like the principle of contradiction (the idea that two contradictory things cannot both be true). Do you live as if that is false?

My argument is just as you believe them without any evidence, you have to believe in objective morality.

Also, your idea that it changes from time to time is still incorrect. You are still holding one thing objectively.

“That in any given society at any given time, whatever it deems as against its social norm deserves punishment”. Is that not true? So you still have at least one objective moral.

God Bless

No, ALL the concepts that you are speaking of have developed over time. Mathematics have developed over time, concept of self has developed over time etc. They continue to develop and change. I can say that this is “true” as far as I can see, but I know that’s only a a short distance. It doesn’t make it an absolute. They will continue to develop and change. I believe that morality exists and I apply it to the best of my understanding but I know that it will also change. It’s based on our best understanding at the time.

 

[larkin31]

This is why I said initially that you were not logically sound. Now you tell me that this is your argument against Objective morality. Make up your mind.

I have explained it at least 5 times on this thread. Others can discuss with me if you don’t understand.

Here is my question to you, do you believe other minds exists? Do yo REALLY believe that they exist? Well the problem is that it CANNOT be demonstrated logically. It is from human experience. It is a metaphysical truth.

Yes, I believe it. But I am not 100% certain (not “absolutely certain”). But other minds agreeing on morality does not make the moral idea exist outside of human discourse. I keep saying this, but you do not address this. I keep admitting that perhaps (remotely likley) even ALIENS exist. I just keep saying that even if aliens also make rules against murder, this does not make the moral “absolute” or “objective.” It simply means that it is a SHARED moral.

SO, in the same way, I am telling you that the objective morals are from human experience. We know objective morals exists from HUMAN EXPERIENCE. Therefore, they are just as REAL as me believing that YOU ARE NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION

No one is saying that morals are not “real.” You are changing the terms of the argument now. Ideas in human discourse are very REAL. They exist AS IDEAS.

Morality must be a truth. It can’t just be a truth of human discourse.

Not simply because you declare it to be so.

Do you teach them in school that Scientific axioms and Mathematical truths are just in the realm of human discourse and doesn’t exist outside of it?

Some, sure. Even 2 + 2 can equal 11 (if you change the presumption of the base).

Or even better, do you teach them that your little idea that “morality is only present in the realm of human discourse” is a statement that transcends the realm of human discourse?

What?

Just out of curiosity, which school is this?

Just out of curiosity, what is your full name and favorite password?

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus was right. He was not referring to isolated events in our life but our basic attitude towards Him.: acceptance or rejection.

Our basic attitudes exist along a continuum with many shades of mixture of acceptance and rejection. This is still a false dichotomy. This kind of rhetorical device is a logical error used to motivate people to action.

It is not rhetorical but realistic if - as you seem to suggest - good is distinct from evil. “along with” gives the game away! There comes a stage - if you believe in moral responsibility - when innocence is distinguished from guilt and when co-existence becomes impossible.

If you don’t even allow for the possibility that there are other persons you beg the question of whether we are the authors of morality.

When you provide empirical evidence of rational life with morals, then it will be relevant to this discussion. I certainly don’t exclude the possibility, however speculative it might be. Your “God” might also be a total fiction. How many speculative possibilities must we entertain here?

It is speculative to assume that we** alone** are rational beings. In both science and philosophy it is impossible to make discoveries unless possibilities are considered. They are ruled out only when falsified. Your reference to God is a red herring.

1. Is the distinction between good and evil artificial?

What do you mean by “artificial”?
Please refer to question 4.

2. Does goodness enhance or impoverish life?

Usually enhance.
When not?

3. Does evil promote or destroy harmony in society?

Usually disharmony.
When not?

4. Can you specify a case where one should be evil rather than good or destructive rather than creative?

“Creative” in what sense? I think you are asking for a logical impossibility. This is asking, “Can you name a case when doing good is doing bad?”

Then you agree that there is an objective distinction between good and evil?

5. Is it positive or negative to reject the need for virtues like faith, hope, love and courage?

What does “reject the need” for these mean? I don’t understand the wording of this question. And, moreover, I do not consider “faith” a “virtue.” Your question is loaded with assumptions that I do not accept.

Do you believe hope, love and courage should be promoted in society and encouraged in every child’s education - or not?

6. Should you always do what you are convinced is right?

Pretty much, yes. But the “convinced” part is what I object too. When one is “convinced” is easy. But life is often much murkier than this. Just see all the threads here at CA for advice, and how varied the answers are!

It may be easy and life is often problematical but it remains an absolute truth that you should always do what you are convinced is right. I’m sure you would never deliberately disregard that principle and continue to have a clear conscience…

 

[PRmerger]

It may be easy and life is often problematical but it remains an absolute truth that you should always do what you are convinced is right. I’m sure you would never deliberately disregard that principle and continue to have a clear conscience…

'zactly.

I have had this discussion with Larkin before; there is the absolute principle that a moral person must obey his conscience at all times.

If one disagrees with the above, then please provide an example of a person being moral while disobeying his conscience.

 

[ddarko]

Yes, I believe it. But I am not 100% certain (not “absolutely certain”). But other minds agreeing on morality does not make the moral idea exist outside of human discourse. I keep saying this, but you do not address this. I keep admitting that perhaps (remotely likley) even ALIENS exist. I just keep saying that even if aliens also make rules against murder, this does not make the moral “absolute” or “objective.” It simply means that it is a SHARED moral.

Ok one last question to at least prove your mental sanity,

Which one of these feels more certain and why?

1. Other minds exists and are not a figment of my imagination
2. Objective morality exists

Do you have proof for (1) that you don’t have for (2)? Is it not true that both are from human experience?

My point to you Mr. Larkin is that both (1) and (2) are from human experience. So just as your friends and family feel real to you, so should objective morality. They both are of the same type of truths.

Now if you know of aliens form human experience, well good for you… that would also explain a good deal of things…

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

'zactly.

I have had this discussion with Larkin before; there is the absolute principle that a moral person must obey his conscience at all times.

If one disagrees with the above, then please provide an example of a person being moral while disobeying his conscience.

A person who was forced to integrate during segregation. Their conscience might have told them that integration was “bad” or dangerous but because of the law they were forced to act morally.

I’m sure this happens when ever there is a change in society. Woman’s rights, minority rights, etc. Sometimes our consciences have to catch up with morality.